The three primary love styles in Hendrick and Hendrick (1986) are Eros (romantic, passionate love), Ludus (game-playing love), Storge (friendship love), and three main secondary styles: Mania (possessive, dependent love), Pragma (logical, “shopping list” love), and Agape (all-giving, selfless love). Altogether, these love styles are all equally valid ways of loving. In order to determine your love style, you can complete a brief quiz. Hendrick and Hendrick (1986) developed a self-report questionnaire measure of love styles. Respondents indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with the statements, examples of which include “My partner and I have the right physical ‘chemistry'” (Eros) and “Our love is the best kind because it grew out of a long friendship” (Storge). There are from 3–7 items for each of the six styles described above. After I completed the love styles questionnaire, I was surprised with my final results. My mean for each individual love style test was 1.4 for Pragma, 2.5 (Eros), 3 (Ludus), 3.28 (Storge), 4.57 (Mania), and 4.71 (Agape). The lowest mean signifies the love style that is most characteristic of myself. My lowest mean was Pragma. Pragmatic love emphasizes trust and tolerance and develops with greater deliberation and self-control than do other types of love. Pragma is rational. I would agree that I am rational because I like to think about relationships in terms of benefits and setbacks and how they will affect my future before I fully get involved. Pragmatic love focuses on desired attributes of the lover. In fact, “love planning” might be an apt description. Levine, T. R., Aune, K., & Park, H. (2006). Love styles and communication in relationships: Partner preferences, initiation, and intensification. Communication Quarterly, 54(4), 465-486. In the “Love Styles and Communication in Relationships” article, Levine, Aune and Park investigate the role of love styles in the early stages of romantic relationships. They base their research off of 3 studies.
The first study examines characteristics people report as desirable in a relational partner, the second study explores opening lines and intensification, and the third study investigates the association between love styles and ratings of secret tests among individuals currently involved in a relationship. These data construct holds that love means different things to different people coinciding that individuals’ beliefs about love fall under one or more of the six basic love styles. Reported through the studies is people who hold different views of love should differ, in what they find attractive, how they first encounter potential partners, and once involved, how they handle commitment in a serious relationship. To begin, their investigation examines six different love styles. The proposed ideal love styles are Eros, Storge, Ludus, Agape, Pragma, and Mania. Eros is a love style in which the romantic elements of love are emphasized. Emotional intensity and sexual intimacy characterize this style of love. Storge is a form of love resulting from a friendly relationship. They want their significant other to be their best friend and they will choose their mates based on similar goals and interests. The Ludic lover handles love as a game that is often played with multiple partners. Qualities of deception and manipulation characterize Ludus love. Agapic love is a self-sacrificing, other-centered love. Apapic lovers view their partners as blessings and wish to take care of them. Pragmatic love is based off of logic and reason. Pragmatic lovers think rationally and realistically about their expectations in a partner and ultimately want to work with their partner to reach a common goal. Lastly, the central characteristics of Manic love are dependence, possessiveness, uncertainty, jealousy, and emotional upheaval. Manic lovers have extremely low self esteem and place much importance on their relationships. It is very important to understand each type of love because individuals are thought to hold differing levels of each type at a particular time. Much research on love styles has reported dating partner preferences in terms of similarities of love styles. What has not been sufficiently researched, however, is how love styles contribute to how individuals initiate, communicate, maintain, and develop their romantic relationships. Therefore, this current research by Levine, Aune and Park is designed to examine the relationship between love styles and relational communication strategies.
Paradigms in social science provide a viewpoint or set of assumptions that frame the research process. They are fundamental models or frames of reference that we use to organize our observations and reasoning. This paper uses objective paradigms throughout the area of research. An objective paradigm studies organizational behavior through hypothesis testing and uses quantitative research to examine a concept, people, or situation that the researcher is interested in. Quantitative research involves experiments, surveys, testing, and structured content analysis to collect data with number and statistics. Levine, Aune and Park, use three exploratory studies to investigate the role of love styles in the early stages of romantic relationships. In this article the same three methods are used to acquire three different results. “Undergraduate students enrolled in upper division classes at a western university… completed a survey containing ratings and rankings of partner characteristics, love styles, and demographic items during regularly scheduled class time. Participants received extra credit for their participation.” (Levine, Anne & Park 2006 pg. 473) The first study explored preferences for certain characteristics in romantic partners and the associations between love styles. The second study investigates the association between love styles, opening lines, and intensification strategies. The last study tested for an association between love styles and secret tests. All in all, people with different love styles differed systematically in what they look for in a romantic partner, their preferred methods of relational intensification, and their penchants for secret tests. Through my own life experiences I can accurately examine the role of love styles influencing my relationships. For example, the relationship I have with my boyfriend. He was my first everything: first date, first boyfriend, first kiss, first person to hear me say I love you. It all started sophomore year of high school.
We met through one of my best friends at a basketball game. He introduced himself with a very direct approach and we had a lot in common from the jump. However, I was not immediately attracted to him. I knew he was the opposite since he ended up getting my number and after several weeks of talking, flirting and getting to know one another, I started to form a little crush. In the article, “Love Styles and Communication in Relationships”, the immediate attraction to our ideal ‘characteristics’ of any partner are important in forming a lasting relationship (Levine, Aune & Park 2006). This is definitely true for our newly developing relationship. Since, I discovered that I am a pragmatic lover, I understand why it took me forever to finally establish that I had feelings for him. I wanted to make sure he matched all the characteristics that I preferred in a partner. After communicating with him much more I finally found those characteristics in him. Always putting others before himself, kind, sweet and very physically active, were all some of the characteristics he possessed which originally attracted me to him. Within a few weeks we were talking on a daily basis, before school, after school, between classes; we became very close. Eventually, we got over the biggest hurdle, meeting my Parents. Having my Parents’ approval was the most important step in our relationship. My Dad doesn’t just say yes to anyone! Given that my Parents liked him, it made me like him even more and over the next few weeks we became a lot closer. My feelings for him continued to grow; I was thrilled the day he asked me to be his girlfriend. Over the next year he and I would ride the roller coaster of love. We shared what is described as ludic love. Ludis describes love as a game, something to pass the time. Ludic lovers are not seeking long-term relationships; rather, they seek immediate gratification and their partner’s affection. Early dating relationships are often of the ludis type. Young love is unique, special in that there is no stress to be sexually active; being physically close to one another is satisfying enough.
Our goal was to be in love, not to fulfill any sexual agenda. Also, we were both so young that it was hard for us to see very far into the future, we were just having fun, not looking for a future spouse. But after a year of not being in a committed relationship, we decided to make it more serious. We have been dating for three years and are still going strong. Deciding to go to college together was a huge factor in our relationship. This was one of the biggest decisions of my life. I had to think rationally. Was this relationship going to be of benefit or setback and how will it affect my future? Pragmatic love focuses on desired attributes of the lover. That is how I based my decision. My boyfriend has the desired attributes and characteristics I look for in a guy and I am happy with my choice. My experience with love has been very different from most people my age. I have dealt with many complications that come with being in a relationship. After reading and analyzing the article “Love Styles and Communication,” my love style indeed reflects with whom I found attractive and how I chose to intensify my relationship. During my relationship I wasn’t always a pragmatic lover. Interestingly, this is usually common; “it would be rare for one person at any one time to hold one and only one purg type… individuals are thought to hold differing levels of each at a particular time.” (Levine, Anne & Park 2006 Pg 467). By beginning with a ludic love, I realized what type of lover I truly was. I am a pragmatic lover and love planning is my kind of game! Through my own analysis of my love life, I can relate to the research findings in this study.